postmd_add_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the API key permission requirement, scope visibility, the ownership restriction on SHARED scope, and required parameter relationships. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema alone offers, though it does not describe the response shape or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and conditional rules. Every clause contributes either a required behavior, a dependency, or a scope constraint, making the structure efficient and highly scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical operational context: auth, parameter combinations, scope behavior, and ownership restrictions. It does not mention docCode explicitly, but that parameter is required by the schema and self-evident. Minor gaps like return value and exact error conditions prevent a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: content vs color-only behavior, quotedContent being required for highlights, and scope visibility nuances. These relationships are not inferable from individual parameter descriptions, so the description clearly enhances parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a note or highlight to a document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like postmd_delete_note, postmd_update_note, and postmd_list_notes, which cover delete, update, and list operations respectively. It is unambiguous what action this tool performs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete usage guidance: give content for a note, give color alone for a colour-only highlight, and require quotedContent in that case. It also explains the scope options and their visibility implications. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.